[I
am traveling right now and can't do new columns while on the road. I pulled
this one from
my CD because Gingrich has fooled people for a long, long time. If
Americans continue to support the same people who have taken us to the
point of collapse, nothing will change. Make no mistake about it: Gingrich
is a one world government advocate. This article was written in February,
1996. By necessity, it is two parts.]

It always
amazes me how otherwise intelligent people will put party loyalty above
their commitment to God, flag and country. I have been a Republican all
my life except when I ran for Congress in 1994 and that hiatus was strictly
for the election. I am a Republican because I believe in our Republic.
I do not pledge loyalty for any individual in the Republican party if
that individual introduces, supports or passes unconstitutional legislation
and sells out this country to this proposed New World Order.

One
of the goals of my Project on Winning Economic Reform and my
bid for Congress is to bring out the truth about how certain programs,
i.e. social security, the FED, the IRS and so on, are set up and why they
don't work. Equally important, is bringing forth ideas for solutions and
then running for office so we can bring these solutions forward.

It's
very frustrating when you spend a great deal of time explaining all of
this, providing factual documentation which supports the truth, and then
have people simply ignore this truth and continue to support the same
people who support these unconstitutional, programs bringing America to
financial ruin -just because that individual is a mucky- muck in their
party or their incumbent. Very frustrating.

On January
12, 1996, Mr. Gingrich came to Redding, California to raise money for
my opponent, Walter Herger- Eight hundred people paid $125.00 per person
to hear his spin; Mr. Herger got a hundred thousand dollars from his cohort
and supporter of the New World Order. It's difficult to try and explain
to folks just what the problem is with people like Dole, Gingrich, Herger,
Gephardt, Clinton, Feinstein and so on if people don't want to hear the
truth. These individuals, through their actions, all support the destruction
of America. Their rhetoric is structured to meet the needs of whatever
audience they are pandering to.

How
can we determine whether a duly elected public servant is really doing
the right thing for America and not for his own power? Through his voting
record. It's that simple. Not by listening to his speeches, not by 15-second
sound bites on TV but through his voting record. In the case of Mr. Clinton,
the media kept all his illegal activities and shenanigans a secret so
that Americans only got 15 second sound bites. Had the media told the
truth, this immoral individual and his equally immoral wife would not
be the Presidents of the United States.

Mr.
Gingrich struts around like he's Thomas Jefferson. Nothing could be farther
from the truth. Our illustrious speaker almost lost his last primary election
and the election itself. Five Democrats and more importantly, five Republicans
on the House Ethics Committee unanimously voted to appoint an Independent
Counsel to look into his GOPAC activities - most notably, the channeling
of those funds into his 1990 primary. You see, he almost lost that primary
too.

Many
individuals who participate in my Project On Winning Economic Reform live
in Cobb County, Marietta, Georgia, Gingrich's district. I have received
a mountain of information on him and his voting record. The media has
created this image that Gingrich is the quintessential conservative, yet
nothing could be farther from the truth. I'll let you be the judge after
you read the rest of this article.

Now
this may not sit well with conservative Republicans who are desperately
seeking leadership, but the facts are the facts. It's not that I dislike
Gingrich. I've never met him. What I don't like is the way he votes and
what he supports, period.

It's
nice to belong to a political party. It's a good thing to be active in
your local community on the grassroots level, working for a better America
for all. However, when party loyalty to individuals who do not uphold
their oath of office and are selling America down the road, becomes more
important than loyalty to God, flag and country, it become s destructive.
This type of blind loyalty is not in anyone's best interests, least of
all for our country. lt may also split the vote in 1996 if Dole or Gramm
wins the GOP nomination, and tragically, would put this Marxist back in
the White House for another four years.

The
New American magazine, a very conservative publication, published
a story on Mr. Gingrich last year. This article is quite accurate and
I feel deserves a good airing for Republicans. There are 79 freshmen Republican
men and women in the House [Congress]. They are going to be our only salvation
in keeping a steady course. As yet, they haven't started to expose the
core truth, but I honestly feel if another 35-50 constitutionalists are
elected this year, collectively, as a whole, they will make the move against
the Federal Reserve. God willing, I will be one of them.

Subtitle:
Can A New Age, CFR functionary lead the Conservative Advance?

"Fire
breather," "bomb thrower," "the man most Democrats
consider the devil incarnate," "the guerrilla leader of Congress'
Republican insurgents," "McCarthyite," "bulldog extremist."
These are some of the nice epithets that have been hurled at Rep. Newton
Leroy Gingrich, the Republican minority whip from Georgia's 6th Congressional
District who is expected to be replacing Tom Foley as Speaker of the House
in the lO4th Congress.

To judge
from the furious invective he inspires from sputtering Democrat polls
and media liberals, this man must be far indeed "to the right of
Attila the Hun." Barely a day after the seismic shift of November
8th that swept the GOP to power in Congress and in state houses across
the land, Mr. Gingrich had liberal punditdom frothing in high dungeon
for referring to Bill and Hillary Clinton as "counterculture McGoverniks"
and to their White House staff as a bunch of "left-wing elitists."
Even worse, he charged that Clinton Democrats are the "enemy of normal
Americans" and the party of "total bizarreness,, total weirdness."

The
Vision Thing

To millions
of Americans, of course, Gingrich's words were merely accentuating verbally
what they had already so powerfully expressed with their votes. And the
media reaction was not only delicious icing on the cake, but proof that
their new champion had hit the mark. An arrogant, imperial President and
an equally contemptuous Congress intent on imposing homosexuals on the
military, pushing condoms to grade school children, disposing of the Second
Amendment, taxing families into extinction, gutting national defense,
regulating businesses to death, spending the nation into oblivion, and
entangling America in one UN military operation after another had been
resoundingly repudiated in one of the most severe political massacres
of modern times. And the victors, who had been scorned and excoriated
as nuts, malcontents, and "religious extremists," had earned
the right to crow - something Gingrich does with unmatched flair.

But
Newt Gingrich is also a capable exponent of "the vision thing."
In a policy address on November 1lth at Washington's Willard Hotel, Gingrich
delivered the conservative/populist message that many Americans wanted
to hear, declaring that he was going to pursue the goal of "disciplined,
smaller, more frugal government" - with a vengeance. "One of
the reasons the American people are so fed up with the current political
structure," he charged, "is that they think they send a strong
signal on election day and they watch it gradually dribble away in Washington,
with all the people in Washington finding excuses not to do what they've
[been] asked to do." Amen.

And
the signal the American people were sending, he said, was "based
on a pretty clear direction of less government, less regulation, less
interference, and lower taxes, not just at the federal level, but at virtually
every level across the country in virtually every state..."

Liberal
columnist David S. Broder was suitably impressed by the address, calling
it "a policy speech that was confident, coherent, and in every way
impressive. The words were strong, the thoughts were clear, and no one
who heard him was in any doubt that the House Republicans he leads will
attempt to enact the conservative governing agenda he described."

Whoa
there, Mr. Broder, speak for yourself. For those who were listening closely,
there was more than one agenda described. And for those familiar with
history, with politicians in general, and with Newt Gingrich in particular,
there was plenty of cause for doubt - and concern.

The
GATT Man

Chief
and most immediate among those doubts and concerns is Gingrich's zealous
commitment to helping President Clinton secure congressional approval
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/World Trade Organization
[GATT/WTO] accord. When asked at his November 1lth briefing, "Will
you rally the troops for GATT and the World Trade Organization?"
he replied: "Yes. In the first place, the Administration has accepted
amendments of Senator Dole and myself giving Congress dramatically more
oversight of the WTO, including the right to bring up a vote on withdrawal
every five years in perpetuity, so at any point that we think it is out
of control or inappropriate, we can simply withdraw."

The
impression given by his answer was that he and Dole recently had come
up with some amendments that would allay all concerns about loss of U.S.
sovereignty to, and interference in domestic U.S. concerns by, the proposed
supra-national WTO. What he actually was referring to was Section 125
of the agreement, entitled "Review of Participation in the WTO,"
which hardly provides the security against WTO tyranny he pretends to
find. One of the most manifest weaknesses of Section 125 " protection"
is the five-year cycle of opportunity for withdrawing, the WTO mega-bureaucracy
could do a lot of damage to American interests in five years.

Moreover,
as far as "congressional oversight" goes, one need only consider
how little that has been worth in protecting U.S. interests at the United
Nations, the World Bank, IMF, UNESCO, or any of the other internationalist
ventures with which we have become entangled.

Earlier
this year Gingrich hesitated to support GATT and expressed concern that
the WTO smacked of world government. "That is a bizarre turnabout
for a man who almost single-handedly bailed out the Clinton Presidency
by rounding up Republican votes for a similar accord - the North American
Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] - over the opposition of House Democrats,"
the New York Times chided in a May 8th editorial.

The
Times had a point about Gingrich's NAFTA role, even though its arguments
in favor of GATT/WTO were phony. "The WTO would be more pussycat
than tiger - and would protect U.S. interests better than the existing
GATT," putted the Times. That is about as convincing as
the claims of Clinton, Gingrich and company that GATT would, after ten
years, "add an average of $1,700 to the annual income of every American
family."

The
WTO does indeed present a threat of world government. It is a multinational
body with legislative, executive and judicial branches wielding formidable
powers. The myriad of ministries, councils, committees, commissions, panels
and boards to be established under the WTO would make it a global leviathan.
It would be far worse than the dozens of international commissions, committees,
and secretariats created to oversee and regulate trade between Canada,
Mexico and the U.S. under the 1,700 page NAFTA treaty - which Newt Gingrich
gave to Bill Clinton on a silver platter. So much for promises about kinder,
simpler, and less intrusive government.

Fast
Track to Disaster

However,
the dangers of the GATT/WTO agreement, itself are, at this point, of less
immediate concern than the immoral and illegal process by which it is
being rammed down our throats. And this from Mr. Gingrich, who in the
same breath promises a new "openness" and "honesty"
in governing and who calls for greater "participation" and "engagement"
by the people. It is the rankest hypocrisy to talk about the new "mandate"
and "listening to the people" and then to continue with the
same sleazy manner of doing "business as usual" in Washington.

Forcing
a "fast track" vote on GATT/WTO - what some have called the
"most important vote of the decade, if not the last 50 years"
- in the "lame duck" Congress is an unconscionable act that
cannot be justified on any county. It intentionally ignores what is obvious:

•
As Gingrich himself has noted, "the people have spoken," and
have elected a new Congress; and that new Congress should have the right
(and responsibility) to vote on something as important as GATT. It should
not be passed by a body that has been repudiated by the voters.

•
The GATT system and negotiations have been going on since 1947. It is
absurd to suggest that after nearly 50 years we must now rush this new
agreement through, that it cannot wait a couple more months for a new
Congress to consider.

•
The GATT accord runs some 26,000 pages. No member of Congress has read
all of this monstrosity. Gingrich promised to make all bills and documents
accessible to the American people, but we certainly have not had full
access to all of this document.

•
If the Clinton health care program deserved to be knocked of the "fast
track" because it was a costly, bureaucratic, socialists nightmare,
GATT/WTO deserves the same.

"The
matters with which the GATT/WTO accord deal clearly qualify it as a treaty
and therefore require ratification by a two-thirds vote in the Senate.
Gingrich's repeated veneration of the Constitution (not to mention his
oath) will be proven false if he does not demand compliance with this
constitutional requirement.

However,
the new Speaker of the House appears to be taking his direction from the
New York Times and from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR),
the driving organizational force behind GATT (Gingrich is a member of
the CFR), rather than from the Constitution or "the people"
he claims to honor and represent.

Rhetoric
and Reality

Since
so many other conservatives actives have been gulled into embracing GATT
under the false banner of "free trade," Newt Gingrich's role
in promoting NAFTA & GATT is seen by as insufficient in and of itself
to call into question his "conservative" bona fides. After all,
his rhetoric is as fiercely conservative as anyone 's. He once denounced
Senator Robert Dole, the Republican Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee,
as "the tax collector for the welfare state." He labeled all
of official Washington "a large, open conspiracy to take away the
money and freedom of the citizens of this country." In 1985, he called
President Reagan's rapprochement with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbechev
potentially "the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler
met with Chamberlain in 1938 at Munich." Over and over again, he
had denounced big government, socialism, high taxes, deficits, welfare,
bureaucracy, and the "counterculture."

True
enough, but in politics deeds speak louder than words. And Newt Gingrich's
deeds all too often do not match his words. Since entering Congress, Gingrich
has repeatedly voted for big government, deficit spending, welfare, foreign
aid, regulatory intervention, and socialism. He has repeatedly voted to
send U.S. taxpayer dollars to communist countries and to grant communist
tyrannies such as Red China and the Soviet Union most favored nation (MFN)
trade status, while demanding trade sanctions against South Africa.

He has
given support to Nelson Mandela and the terrorist African National Congress.
He repeatedly has voted for extremist environmentalist measures that are
costing Americans billions of dollars. He repeatedly has catered to the
"counterculture" and the militant homosexual lobby. For part
two click below.

Devvy
Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty;
2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country
as well as her own; ran for Congress and is a highly sought after public
speaker.

She left the
Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since.
Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who
believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party. Her
web site contains a tremendous amount of information, solutions and a
vast Reading Room.

It isn't possible
to respond to 20,000 emails a month. Before you send Devvy e-mail, please
take the time to check the FAQ section on
her web site; it has been updated and filled with answers to frequently
asked questions and links to reliable research sources

However,
the new Speaker of the House appears to be taking his direction from the
New York Times and from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR),
the driving organizational force behind GATT (Gingrich is a member of
the CFR), rather than from the Constitution or "the people"
he claims to honor and represent.